Monday, March 07, 2011

People Make a Difference

Nice article in the Washington Post yesterday about how people-talking-to-people can change the world.

When he learned that Sen. James Brochin was planning to vote against Maryland's same-sex marriage bill, Tim Connor was dumbfounded.

After all, he and Brochin (D-Baltimore County) knew each other pretty well: For several summers, they had volunteered side by side in the concession stand at the neighborhood pool, where both have daughters on the swim team.

So last month, Connor, who adopted his 11-year-old daughter with his same-sex partner of 20 years, called his senator on his cellphone.

"I said, 'Jim, what are you doing here?' " Connor recalled. " 'Look at it through the kids' eyes. They don't have any issue with this.' "

Brochin didn't tip his hand at the time, but a couple of weeks later, he joined a majority of senators voting for the bill. That 25 to 21 vote shifted action on the legislation to the House, where a committee approved the bill Friday, setting up what promises to be a dramatic debate in the full chamber this week. Personal appeals on Md. gay marriage bill making a difference, lawmakers say

Anti-marriage arguments largely depend on some philosophical concept of marriage and a narrowed view of the "purpose" of marriage. In fact, marriage takes on an incredible number of forms around the world and through human history, it is an economic institution, a cultural institution, a system for preserving sometimes elaborate patterns of kinship, a tradition that often allows for the welding of alliances between families and social subgroups, in Western society marriage is an expression of a lifetime commitment of love, and marriage often functions as an institution that supports procreation and the upbringing of offspring. Given the multidimensional nature of marriage, it is overly simplistic to declare that this or that marriage does not meet the official dictionary definition. But that's really the only thing that the anti-marriage proponents have, the argument that marriage between two people of the same sex somehow violates an abstract conception of what marriage "should be."

In reality, each couple represents a unique flowing together of the forces of life, fate brings people together in ways that transcend logic and the feelings that people have for one another are unpredictable and surprising. What kind of rule determines if two people will fall in love? So they're both men, or both women, is their love any less real? And why shouldn't they act on their love, make a commitment, form a family, spend their lives together fighting over the remote control, and take care of each other into their old age?

This article makes a great point. Legislators might debate fine points of the philosophy of political systems and social implications of policy decisions, but when you get down to it, the people you talk to influence you the most.

As legislators have weighed the highest-profile issue in Annapolis this year - in some cases trying to reconcile their desire to extend rights with their religious beliefs - they've heard plenty from lobbyists and advocacy groups on both sides.

But it's the personal appeals that are making a difference, some lawmakers say.

Del. Tiffany Alston (D-Prince George's) cited the outpouring of opposition from black churches in her county as one reason for reconsidering her support of the legislation last week. On Sunday, ministers in some African American churches preached about the legislation and asked their congregations to register their opposition with lawmakers. A prayer vigil is planned for Monday night in Annapolis.

"I know that my community does not like this bill," Alston told her colleagues before voting against the measure Friday as a member of the House Judiciary Committee. Alston's unexpected absence at a voting session earlier in the week had slowed the bill's progress.

So yes, it works both ways. Legislators listen to people from both sides of an issue.

There is a moral to the story, of course.

Some of the personal outreach on both sides has been coordinated.

As part of a lobbying campaign, Equality Maryland, the state's leading gay-rights organization, has nudged neighbors, co-workers and fellow pool members of lawmakers to make personal appeals. Connor was encouraged to call Brochin by a former executive director of the group.

Within the same span of a few days, the senator's position was also questioned by a real estate broker in his district and a Republican constituent with whom he speaks regularly.

"It all started to grow on me and have an impact," said Brochin, a divorced father who previously supported civil unions for gay couples but balked at same-sex marriage. "These are families, just like my daughter and me. It made me realize the problem with the word 'marriage' may be my own."

We have seen the email blasts from the Citizens for Responsible Whatever, as well, telling their people to make phone calls and go to Annapolis to talk to legislators. They are working this hard, it is really important to them to make sure gay and lesbian couples cannot marry.

The Maryland House of Delegates is probably going to vote on marriage equality this week, with debate expected to begin Wednesday. Some Delegates are uncertain, they may not have thought through the whole concept of real people of the same sex marrying -- and you can be sure they are hearing from the other side, they are hearing about the sinful ways of our LGBT neighbors, the moral depravity of those who have chosen the "gay lifestyle." If you have a story to tell, if you have feelings about the issue, this is the time to contact your representative in the House of Delegates, let them see your face, hear your voice. It can make a difference.

12 Comments:

If I were Sen. James Brochin, I would have told Tim Connor that while kids do not have any problem with this a full third of the States in the United States have carefully deliberated on this question and have declined to redefine marriage according to the whim of 3 to 5% of the population.

Sure, and we could have asked the majority of Americans in each state how they felt about giving blacks equal rights via the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s too. Then we'd still have "separate but equal" water fountains, public schools, back door restaurant entrances, and seats on the back of the bus for our black citizens to go along with our "civil unions" for gays in some states.

Maryland's referendum will be in 2012, six long years after Colorado's and I predict it will go the other way, maybe even by that same 6 point spread.

Orin said "If I were Sen. James Brochin, I would have told Tim Connor that while kids do not have any problem with this a full third of the States in the United States have carefully deliberated on this question and have declined to redefine marriage according to the whim of 3 to 5% of the population.".

Allowing gays and lesbians to marry is neither a whim nor the goal of only 3 to 5% of the population. Latest polls show a majority of Americans are in favour of marriage equality so it is you and yours Orin who's hatred is in a minority.

Anon, I see that this article from a 2007 Christian web site called Life Site News (apparently originating at World Net Daily but now unfindable) is very popular with the rightwingers. There is no evidence, beyond the hundreds of reverberations of the echo chamber, that any such literature actually exists.

Sometimes I find the gullibility of you people totally freakin' incredible.

Sure, and we could have asked the majority of Americans in each state how they felt about giving blacks equal rights via the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s too. Then we'd still have "separate but equal" water fountains, public schools, back door restaurant entrances, and seats on the back of the bus for our black citizens to go along with our "civil unions" for gays in some states.

Orin replies,

Homosexuals are not asked to drink from separate water, attend segregated public schools or even back door entrances to restaurants. While there was once a time when homosexuals had to not only stay in the closet, but had to construct sham lives as fronts to conceal their sexual identity, that timethankfully is largely a thing of the past. Gays and lesbians now contribute openly in so many ways and we are better for those contributions.

To assert that a majority of your fellow citizens decline to radically redefine marriage to mean something it has never meant out of a prejudice that is equal to racial discrimination is shallow, not to mention provincial.

And yes, I can tell which way the gale-force winds of cultural change are blowing, so I will not be surprised to see that same-sex "marriage" will be a reality within 5 to 10 years at best. It is a shame that what gays and lesbians will get will be so weakened that it will not be what they thought they were getting - I guess there is some truth to the expression of being careful of what you wish for...

Priya Lynn writes,

Allowing gays and lesbians to marry is neither a whim nor the goal of only 3 to 5% of the population. Latest polls show a majority of Americans are in favour of marriage equality so it is you and yours Orin who's hatred is in a minority.

Orin replies,

When one of the principle arguments advanced as a justification for same-sex "marriage" is that it is about love then it does tend to expose an element that can be described as little other than whim. Civilizations need more than whim to survive. And while 3 to 5% of the population is homosexual, fewer of that number care for thatbreeder institution we presently know as natural marriage. I know this because I was told this by my close friend that is gay and at one point was a senior leader in anational gay rights organization. I suppose some gays and lesbians care about what they can accomplish personally with marriage; I suspect many more are eager to reshape American society along their point-of-view of human nature and impose that POV on all the rest of us, whether we like it or not.

And thank you Priya for again confirming what all of us that hold these so unenlightened views have to look forward to when you achieve complete equality.

I never said gays were subjected to the same humiliations as blacks were before federal civil right legislation was enacted.

Gays' "separate but equal" humiliations -- rather than being forced to the back of the bus and to drink from separate water fountains -- are humiliations like civil unions and the inability to make medical decisions for their life-long partner because they can't be legally married.

"To assert that a majority of your fellow citizens decline to radically redefine marriage to mean something it has never meant out of a prejudice that is equal to racial discrimination is shallow, not to mention provincial."

I made no assertion about anyone's reasons for their preferred definitions of any term in my reply to your comment. You had mentioned the votes in states against same-sex marriage. All I said in response is that had each state voted on civil rights for blacks back in the 1960s, we'd still have "separate but equal" schools, entrances, and water fountains for blacks today. IMHO that would be as reprehensible as our continued denial of full civil rights for America's gay and lesbian citizens.

Allowing same-sex couples to wed will not alter a single heterosexual marriage in any way. This is the point where the Prop 8 defenders fell down in court. They could not come up with a single witness to testify as to any supposed harm to others allowing same sex marriage might cause. In fact the Prop 8 Plaintiffs used withdrawn defense witnesses depositions to make their case that "same-sex marriage would increase the durability of gay relationships, and that this benefits children. Marriage rates among straight couples were decreasing before gay marriage became legal in the United States, [and that] ...bigotry against gays and lesbians...has “a religious component to it."

Allowing same-sex couples to wed will not alter a single heterosexual marriage in any way.

Just as allowing no-fault divorce weakened marriage, not to mention harming children overall, allowing marriage to be so radically redefined and in the process to mean something it has never EVER meant in recorded human history (unless when reads and believes the fables told by the late Yale Professor of History John Boswell) will further weaken/damage an already tattered social institution. One need not be an expert to comprehend, if only intuitively, that watering down the meaning of marriage to it being little more than a mish-mash of emotional sentimentality is not good. The irony is that what heterosexuals started in the dismantling of marriage, homosexuals and polygamists will finish off. The levels of social dysfunction will increase to the point where scholars will painfully admit that redefining marriage was not such a good idea. Putting it all back together by then will be impossible.

This is the point where the Prop 8 defenders fell down in court. They could not come up with a single witness to testify as to any supposed harm to others allowing same sex marriage might cause.

Yup...my understanding is that the defense did a terrible job defending natural marriage. Still not very surprising given that heterosexuals have been the main culprits to blame for the present state of marriage. And this leads me to ask the most important question: why?

Why would a sexual minority want in on such a socially damaged institution?

Orin, if you don't like no-fault divorce, move to a state where you can sign up (if your wife consents) for a covenant marriage. Then there can be no "no-fault" divorce for that marriage.

The defenders of Prop 8 were not able to find witnesses to talk about any evidence of harm gay marriage might cause and neither can you. So instead you stoop to ask, "Why would a sexual minority want in on such a socially damaged institution?"

Why would anyone want to be married if it's "such a socially damaged institution," Orin?

It's not because they think the marriage will fail, unless maybe they're gold diggers hoping for lots of alimony.

Most people marry because they want to commit to sharing the ups and downs of life with the person they love. It doesn't matter if people are gay, straight, lesbian, or transgender, people simply want to share their love and their life with someone they care deeply about. In joining together to share their lives, no couple, regardless of orientation, has any effect on any other couple. There is no harm caused by same-sex marriage to your marriage or anyone else's and there is no harm to children either.

Oh and BTW, you are wrong about history of marriage. One of the defense witnesses who was dropped was used by the plaintiffs to address the history of same-sex marriage.

Young testified about the history of gay marriage. While the historical prevalence of heterosexual marriage is one of the defense’s central themes, Young pointed to several historical examples of same-sex marriage. A centuries-old caste in India has a tradition of male-to-male relationships and rituals that lead to marriage, Young said. It was never the norm, she said, but same-sex marriage was a “well-known phenomenon” among Plains Indians, as well as religious groups with a shaman tradition. Other exceptions to the norm of straight marriage include lesbian marriages in West Africa, lesbian marriages among silk workers in China, and gay marriages during the Roman Empire, including among emperors.

Young also agreed that same-sex marriage would increase the durability of gay relationships, and that this benefits children. Marriage rates among straight couples were decreasing before gay marriage became legal in the United States, she said.

She also acknowledged bigotry against gays and lesbians. It has “a religious component to it,” Young said.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS TESTIMONY

Boies’s videotaped questions of Nathanson and Young were likely aimed at showing that opposition to same-sex marriage is rooted in bigotry and religion rather than facts. And by evoking religious opposition to racial integration and women’s rights, Boies pointed out that discrimination can be held unconstitutional even if it has religious roots."

Americans do not discriminate against each other based on religious beliefs because we respect each others' right to hold our own religious beliefs. Some people's religious beliefs keep them from seeing that their views are discriminatory.